Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Package install count incorrect in anaconda install|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Bruno Wolff III <bruno>|
|Component:||anaconda||Assignee:||Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-04-08 23:14:45 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Bruno Wolff III 2008-03-07 23:17:33 EST
Description of problem: While doing a graphical install of Fedora Rawhide (from March 7 am) I noticed that I ended up installing 4929 out of 4927 (!) packages. One of the last couple of packages was part of emacs. I brought this up on the fedora test list and Seth Vidal said he thought he knew what the problem was and asked me to file a bug verus anaconda. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): The version in the packages was anaconda-184.108.40.206-1.i386, but I am not sure if that was what was in the initrd.img (netinst.iso didn't work so I used grub to boot from vmlinuz and initrd.imf from the isolinux directory). How reproducible: I only did it once. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: The cound of packages installed was off by 2. Expected results: The packages actually installed matching the number announced as expected. Additional info: This is from an email message on the fedora test list: On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 19:34 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 18:24:58 -0500, > seth vidal <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:04 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > While doing an install of today's rawhide I ended up having 4929 out of +4927 > > > packages installed. It isn't a big deal, but does seem odd. > > > > > > > > > Did you install using anaconda or was this an upgrade via yum? > > It was an anaconda install I got into by having grub point to a copy > of vmlinuz and initrd.img from the isolinux directory (because netinst.iso > was broken today) on x86_64. It was a graphic install with a custom > file system layout and "customize now". I was anxiously waiting for it > to finish so I was a bit surprised when it kept going after reaching 4927. > One of the last two things had "emacs" in its name. > The boot failed afterwards, but I think that was due to a mkinitrd regression. okay - I know what that was and It is easy to fix. File this one in anaconda - I think it is anaconda's transaction callback getting confused due to the %posttrans call in the emacs package. -sv
Comment 1 Jeremy Katz 2008-03-10 13:56:54 EDT
Seth -- do we end up getting the rpm callback with RPMCALLBACK_INST_CLOSE_FILE again on posttrans?
Comment 2 Seth Vidal 2008-03-10 14:13:34 EDT
yep. Those should be handled correctly on yum 3.2.11 and above, though.
Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2008-04-03 16:01:39 EDT
Hrm, I seem to recall still seeing the wrong count very recently, in the last couple days. Could it be that this isn't fixed then?
Comment 4 Chris Lumens 2008-04-03 17:22:35 EDT
Yeah this is still broken.
Comment 5 Jeremy Katz 2008-04-03 17:56:54 EDT
Brute force hack for this committed in my tree
Comment 6 Jesse Keating 2008-04-08 23:14:45 EDT